The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[MotCO]

The amount of cash available to spend on services depends on the tax rate but also on the size of the economy. Economic growth was knocked back by Brexit, austerity and various other factors, hence why Labour is so keen to get it growing again so there is more money available without increasing tax rates.

Growing the economy is a laudable objective, but increasing the cost of employing staff (leading to inflating costs of the finished product or increasing the numbers unemployed), talking down the economy, and borrowing more to fund increasing public sector revenue costs (which will increase interest rates and inflation), will not encourage growth.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Where my mother lives the council have built a new cycle path with a government contribution of over £40million, no consultation and, guess what, no one uses it.

This is often caused by funding being available for a specific purpose, and council management often don't want to take the hard decisions because the politicians will be angry with the backlash. For instance, cycle lanes and paths can and will work very well, but you need to sort out the city centre cycle lane infrastructure first by making it possible to get around, preferably on a clearly separated path to cars. Then you expand outwards, so that commuting becomes a viable option.
I've just come back from a holiday in Valencia, and there, it's possible to travel all over the city on cycle lanes and paths. It's a joy to cycle around, and commuting is incredibly easy there on a bike. The paths/lanes/etc aren't in isolation, but rather part of a large cohesive network.

Organisations like NHS do need taking in hand as I'm sure massive amounts of money are wasted (purely my own speculation) as just throwing more money at them isn't working and never will work.

The problem isn't waste, but rather the simple issue of an aging society. For all the criticism aimed at the NHS, one of the major issues is that it simply doesn't have the money to actually manage things properly. For instance, most people would agree that the NHS should be managed by people who have done it on the front line. But an experienced consultant is not going to move into a management position in the NHS when he can get 300+ pounds for an individual consultation, and the NHS doesn't have the funding needed to pay him what he would want to run things. The end result is that you've got NHS management that is simultaneously underqualified/inexperienced and yet they have to manage things with far fewer resources than you'd find in a typical private company.

There are also the issues that the NHS are tied by (local) government policy. For instance, take bed blocking. The NHS could and should be able to discharge people when they're ready to leave, but councils have serious issues with providing the social care that they need. The end result is that especially elderly patients stay in hospital for long periods of time without rhyme or reason, and the government should be empowering the NHS trusts to fine local councils in this situation.

Then there's a huge issue with single-use tools in the NHS. For instance, Harmonic shears. They do a great job, but they are single use tools and they're very expensive for what they are. The NHS spends a lot of money on them, but it's already clear that private companies can and do refurbish them so they can be used again. The NHS in this case should have their own company doing exactly this, as it would cut down costs dramatically, but people will be screaming about NHS BUREAUCRACY if they do it. It's a no-win situation and needs strong political leadership.

 

[Magdalia]

Growing the economy is a laudable objective, but increasing the cost of employing staff (leading to inflating costs of the finished product or increasing the numbers unemployed), talking down the economy, and borrowing more to fund increasing public sector revenue costs (which will increase interest rates and inflation), will not encourage growth.

Increasing the costs of employing staff is a good thing for growth, though it doesn't feel that way for existing employers.

One of the main reasons for low growth is low productivity. One of the main causes of low productivity is that it is too easy for employers to rely on cheap minimum wage labour instead of generating high wage high productivity jobs.

Any employer who has staff that can't work without their wages being topped up by benefits is effectively being subsidised by the state.

This is particularly important in an economy where there is a labour shortage, and that's where we are now. Scarce resources should cost more to encourage their most efficient use.

Increasing public sector revenue spending can also help to encourage growth. One example is the National Health Service, which has to spend more to do their bit on getting sick people well enough to work. That includes reducing the number of people off sick because they are on the waiting list for an operation, or because they are on a waiting list for mental health therapy. Another example is the railways, where having a service that isn't repeatedly interrupted will give people confidence that they can rely on trains to get to and from work. Increased expenditure on defence has for centuries been a well known way of increasing economic growth.

You are right that more borrowing will increase interest costs, which is why keeping within the fiscal rules is important. And you are right to be concerned about inflation too. My main criticism of what's been done so far is that the Treasury underestimated the impact on inflation of the National Insurance changes and minimum wage increase in combination. This compounds their earlier error of issuing too much index linked debt, so that higher inflation directly increases debt interest costs.

 

[The Ham]

I don't like things like a cycle scheme that nobody uses. No one I know or my mother knows has ever seen anyone on it. I'd have no opposition if they'd done their research and proved it's perceived value but lical residents were just told that this is happening. I'm well aware of the intentions but they are often very different to the reality. In a congested city I'm sure they're a good investment, in a town without those issues very much less so.

Even if zero cyclists use the route (which is highly unlikely) the wider space available for pedestrians is an advantage to them. This includes being able to be further away from traffic, kids being able to scoot alongside their parents, two parents with buggies being scored to walk alongside each other and so on.

The thing with cycling is that it takes time for people to change their travel patterns. Also it's easy to be unaware of cyclists who are using the route. For example, a cycle may only be on the route for 1/10th of the time of a pedestrian.

Well I'm afraid I'm not supportive of paying towards EVs when government is telling us we need to cut costs. The difference made to pollution is negligible for the few EVs bought, EVs should be like any other product, bought or not through choice and market forces, I don't want my taxes effectively lining someone else's pocket. I can't afford a new car, whether it's a subsidised EV or otherwise so why should I subsidise someone else especially when they're usually massive SUVs with all their associated issues.

Whilst there's questions over the total level of pollution between ICE's and EV's, there's a big difference when it comes to local air quality. Given local air quality is generally where people are (and, say, not near to say a gas power station) a move to EV's will help.

Also, there's a lot more "normal" EV cars coming along (also SUV's aren't only limited to being EV's as there was a shift towards them anyway) as EV's become more mainstream.

 

[takno]

Even if zero cyclists use the route (which is highly unlikely) the wider space available for pedestrians is an advantage to them. This includes being able to be further away from traffic, kids being able to scoot alongside their parents, two parents with buggies being scored to walk alongside each other and so on.

The thing with cycling is that it takes time for people to change their travel patterns. Also it's easy to be unaware of cyclists who are using the route. For example, a cycle may only be on the route for 1/10th of the time of a pedestrian..

Most of the cycle path schemes I've seen built were at the expense of bus lanes, pavement or both, very often leaving a pavement where you can no longer pass people walking two abreast or with a buggy. sure you *might* be able to hop down into the cycle lane to pass, but that's at the risk that some masked idiot on an overpowered ebike will knock you down. In general I'd prefer to take my chances with an insured vehicle where the owner is traceable.

Many cycle paths are bad for pedestrians and bad for buses, and are therefore bad for pollution and bad for active travel.

 

[MotCO]

I've also heard that since so few cyclists use dedicated cycle paths, a lot of debris gets scattered across the cycle paths such that any cyclist using it would soon get punctures, hence they don't use them. So yes, probably an idea with good intentions, but a waste of money.

 

[Richard Scott]

Even if zero cyclists use the route (which is highly unlikely) the wider space available for pedestrians is an advantage to them. This includes being able to be further away from traffic, kids being able to scoot alongside their parents, two parents with buggies being scored to walk alongside each other and so on.

The thing with cycling is that it takes time for people to change their travel patterns. Also it's easy to be unaware of cyclists who are using the route. For example, a cycle may only be on the route for 1/10th of the time of a pedestrian.



Whilst there's questions over the total level of pollution between ICE's and EV's, there's a big difference when it comes to local air quality. Given local air quality is generally where people are (and, say, not near to say a gas power station) a move to EV's will help.

Also, there's a lot more "normal" EV cars coming along (also SUV's aren't only limited to being EV's as there was a shift towards them anyway) as EV's become more mainstream.

The pavement was already a long way from the road as had a grass verge between it and the road so no gain there; I actual fact now more dangerous as pavement shared with cycle path and, if a cyclist did happen to use it, more risky for pedestrians.
I'm well aware of local air quality but offering a grant towards an EV will make next to no difference. I know there are normal EVs but they’re few and far between, most I see are large SUV type vehicles. Smaller cars haven't got space for enough battery range yet so of limited appeal to many. At the end of the day I don't want my money spent on something that's going to make almost no difference to local air quality, you can argue it all you like but it won't.
Issue is government says needs to cut spending so during these times then grants for EVs shouldn't be available. If we have surplus cash then possibly then but not now.

 

[Class 317]

The pavement was already a long way from the road as had a grass verge between it and the road so no gain there; I actual fact now more dangerous as pavement shared with cycle path and, if a cyclist did happen to use it, more risky for pedestrians.
I'm well aware of local air quality but offering a grant towards an EV will make next to no difference. I know there are normal EVs but they’re few and far between, most I see are large SUV type vehicles. Smaller cars haven't got space for enough battery range yet so of limited appeal to many. At the end of the day I don't want my money spent on something that's going to make almost no difference to local air quality, you can argue it all you like but it won't.
Issue is government says needs to cut spending so during these times then grants for EVs shouldn't be available. If we have surplus cash then possibly then but not now.

Grants for Ev have ended.

 

[Mag_seven]

OK folks I think we are starting to drift a bit from the subject of this thread which is about "The Labour Party under Kier Starmer".

If anyone wants to discuss anything else such as cycle paths or electric vehicles then they are welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.

thanks

 

[sor]

Not sure if it should be in this thread or in the Trump one, but there seems to be some hubbub over whether the UK intends to grant concessions to King Donald in order to avoid the impending tariffs, which is quite a departure from the EU or Canada who seem perfectly willing to fight.

https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-hopes-us-tariffs-will-be-reversed-with-economic-deal-2025-04-01/

some snippets:

As part of a deal, the government has considered softening the impact of its digital services tax on technology companies, as Trump has claimed this is discriminatory against U.S. companies.

Britain has also adopted a light touch to AI regulation that is more closely aligned with the United States than with the EU, a policy designed to attract investment from big tech companies and international investors.

But Reynolds said there were red lines to the negotiations, highlighting "sensitive areas" that it would not discuss, such as food standards.

Reynolds said Britain had a higher chance than other countries of securing an exemption, and he remained hopeful that a deal would lead to tariffs being dropped in weeks or months, saying: "That would be my objective."

Downing Street said Starmer and Trump had discussed the "productive negotiations" towards what they called a UK-U.S. economic prosperity deal on Sunday.

 

[brad465]

Not sure if it should be in this thread or in the Trump one, but there seems to be some hubbub over whether the UK intends to grant concessions to King Donald in order to avoid the impending tariffs, which is quite a departure from the EU or Canada who seem perfectly willing to fight.

https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-hopes-us-tariffs-will-be-reversed-with-economic-deal-2025-04-01/

some snippets:

I can't wait for the day the political class finally realise there is no "special relationship" with the US, especially under Trump. Maybe then our entire governance and societal reforms will actually work in our interests.

 

[takno]

Not sure if it should be in this thread or in the Trump one, but there seems to be some hubbub over whether the UK intends to grant concessions to King Donald in order to avoid the impending tariffs, which is quite a departure from the EU or Canada who seem perfectly willing to fight.

https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-hopes-us-tariffs-will-be-reversed-with-economic-deal-2025-04-01/

some snippets:

I don't think that offering concessions in the hopes of avoiding tariffs Ia particularly likely to work, but if it does then it's a valuable outcome. If Trump just comes back demanding more, then Britain can just cancel the concessions and go the same route as everybody else, but with a clearer moral high ground, and possibly slightly longer to prepare.

The Digital Services tax specifically is a great concession to offer, because it gives us room to replace it with something much more severe and effective later.

The digital services tax was supposed to be a short term stepping stone to an international agreement on taxes. The international agreement clearly isn't going to happen now, and as a long term solution the DST is a mess. Part of the problem is that it's unclear whether it's supposed to be protecting bricks and mortar stores, or stopping the profits from being exported tax-free. In all events it's too low for some business models and utterly crippling for others.

Overall there's quite a lot to be said for binning DST, and replacing it with something better. In the current environment that could be something which quite explicitly and heavily taxes US ownership, and encourages tech investment and spending to happen in the UK or Europe.

 

[dangie]

This may require me to put my tin hat on, but in these extremely uncertain times, I have more confidence in Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, over the last 4/5 of his predecessors. I appreciate the bar isn’t set very high.

Note: When I say more confidence in Keir Starmer, I could have said less confidence in the others..!!

 

[The Ham]

I appreciate the bar isn’t set very high.

Some might suggest more of a trip hazard.

 

[Senex]

I can't wait for the day the political class finally realise there is no "special relationship" with the US, especially under Trump. Maybe then our entire governance and societal reforms will actually work in our interests.

Do you think that day will ever come? It seems to have been a tenet of faith for the entire British political class ever since Churchill in WW2 that there has been this "special relationship", that it is survivung well, and that it is worth preserving almost at all cots s (to us). In this it has been ably and willingly backed up by the way the BBC seems always to have given exceptionally generous treatment to anything to do with the USA (and even when we were members of the EU it is was noticeable that USA politics etc got very much more and better coverage than anything in the lands of our EU neighbours). And if the relationship was so special, why was the Europe carve-up at the end of WW2 very much a Stalin/Roosevelt thing with Churchill just trailing along? Why was Truman so quick to stop the exchange of atomic information once British scientists had served their purpose for the USA? And why were we still paying off lease-lend debts to the USA to so very recently?

 

[zero]

In this it has been ably and willingly backed up by the way the BBC seems always to have given exceptionally generous treatment to anything to do with the USA (and even when we were members of the EU it is was noticeable that USA politics etc got very much more and better coverage than anything in the lands of our EU neighbours).

I've noticed that the BBC always just refers to "President Trump" (and Biden, Obama etc.) whereas presidents of other countries are often given a qualifier e.g. "French President Macron" or the country is mentioned in the article title or first few words.

Also the BBC tends to refer to US states as though they are countries.

 

[Harpo]

I have more confidence in Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, over the last 4/5 of his predecessors. I appreciate the bar isn’t set very high.

Starmer’s nearest equivalent was possibly Cameron. Undynamic, monotone and brown-nosey (China rather than US).

Both will be grateful that Boris was as awful as expected. Boris in turn will be grateful that the lettuce was even worse. Trump elevates them all.

Meanwhile, Starmer’s got four years to pitch for his and his team’s jobs. Next month’s local election results will be interesting.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also the BBC tends to refer to US states as though they are countries.

Do they? In what respect? I can’t say I’ve noticed this.

 

[dangie]

I've noticed that the BBC always just refers to "President Trump" (and Biden, Obama etc.) whereas presidents of other countries are often given a qualifier e.g. "French President Macron" or the country is mentioned in the article title or first few words.

Also the BBC tends to refer to US states as though they are countries.

Also, but opposite, where the BBC will refer to world cities by their name e.g. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Sydney etc, in the USA news they will say Paris France, Rome Italy, Madrid Spain, Sydney Australia etc. One would think that Americans need to be told where these cities are.

I appreciate that there are towns in the US with names the same as many world cities, but if they are showing pictures of the Colosseum in Rome it’s hardly likely to be Rome Georgia.

 

[Gloster]

Also, but opposite, where the BBC will refer to world cities by their name e.g. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Sydney etc, in the USA news they will say Paris France, Rome Italy, Madrid Spain, Sydney Australia etc. One would think that Americans need to be told where these cities are.

I appreciate that there are towns in the US with names the same as many world cities, but if they are showing pictures of the Colosseum in Rome it’s hardly likely to be Rome Georgia.

This is unfortunately the truth: there are many citizens of the USA who will think of Paris, Texas, or Rome, Georgia, and think of them as being far more important than some insignificant little place in Europe. That, of course, presumes they know that there is another place with the same name. A lot seem to think that the Europeans (all one group of people) have copied the place names of old ol’ American cities.

The BBC still sees itself as a source of news to the world and adjusts its terminology to what it feels is the best to fully inform, having taken into account the audience knowledge (or lack of it). You may instantly know who a particular person is or where a particular place is: does it really bother you that they have gone that tiny bit further to assis others in understanding the news? One of the first things I learned when writing was always to know at what level to pitch your work so that it is intelligible to the reader.

 

[dangie]

…. does it really bother you that they have gone that tiny bit further to assis others in understanding the news? One of the first things I learned when writing was always to know at what level to pitch your work so that it is intelligible to the reader.

No not at all. I was simply stating the difference in UK news to a UK audience compared to US news to US audience.

 

[brad465]

Starmer’s nearest equivalent was possibly Cameron. Undynamic, monotone and brown-nosey (China rather than US).

Both will be grateful that Boris was as awful as expected. Boris in turn will be grateful that the lettuce was even worse. Trump elevates them all.

Meanwhile, Starmer’s got four years to pitch for his and his team’s jobs. Next month’s local election results will be interesting.

Labour's seat tally is already low due to the vaccine bounce effect when these seats were last up for election in 2021. They will probably lose a few or stay level roughly. The Tories will have a bloodbath as they're at a very high level of seats and are still polling poorly, despite now being the opposition (who do well in local elections normally). The Lib Dems, Reform and the Greens will be the winners.

Incidentally while Reform will perform well here, I think it will only be a short-term victory, as all the councillors they get will cause them headaches. We've just had a story of a candidate being suspended due to past controversial social media posts. The more elected officials they have, the greater the spotlight on them and the more scandals/controversy will come out (they had huge problems finding suitable GE candidates last year for the same reason).

Reform UK: Stephen Hartley suspended after pro-Jimmy Savile tweets

Stephen Hartley was announced as a Reform UK candidate in the Banbury Hardwick ward, but has since been suspended.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Reform UK candidate has been suspended from the party after posts on social media revealed his support for serial sex abuser Jimmy Savile.
Stephen Hartley was listed as standing for Reform UK in the Banbury Hardwick ward, ahead of local elections to Oxfordshire County Council on 1 May.
In an interview with the BBC, Mr Hartley confirmed he had posted in 2022 that Savile was a "working class hero" and said he may have "forgotten" to disclose his X account to Reform UK.
When sent the posts, Reform UK said Mr Hartley had been suspended and the party had "withdrawn all support for his candidacy".
Jimmy Savile was one of Britain's biggest TV stars between the 1960s and 1990s and was known for raising millions of pounds for charity.
After his death in 2011, he was revealed to be one of the UK's most prolific sexual predators.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Hartley said he had doubts over whether the allegations made by victims against Savile were true.
Hundreds of victims have said they were abused by Savile including on BBC premises, in hospitals, schools and children's homes.
The NSPCC said Savile had been one of the most prolific sex offenders in its 129-year history.

 

[Acfb]

Labour's seat tally is already low due to the vaccine bounce effect when these seats were last up for election in 2021. They will probably lose a few or stay level roughly. The Tories will have a bloodbath as they're at a very high level of seats and are still polling poorly, despite now being the opposition (who do well in local elections normally). The Lib Dems, Reform and the Greens will be the winners.

Incidentally while Reform will perform well here, I think it will only be a short-term victory, as all the councillors they get will cause them headaches. We've just had a story of a candidate being suspended due to past controversial social media posts. The more elected officials they have, the greater the spotlight on them and the more scandals/controversy will come out (they had huge problems finding suitable GE candidates last year for the same reason).

Reform UK: Stephen Hartley suspended after pro-Jimmy Savile tweets

Stephen Hartley was announced as a Reform UK candidate in the Banbury Hardwick ward, but has since been suspended.

www.bbc.co.uk

I haven't really had to time to properly analyse the elections properly. I would guess best case scenario for Labour is largest party (probably not a majority) on two or three councils like Derbyshire or Northumberland.

I have no idea how well Reform will do (probably quite well) but I actually wonder if they could underperform and Independents overperform.

Lib Dems will obviously do well in councils like Oxfordshire and I will be surprised if they do not get a majority there.

 

[simonw]

Also, but opposite, where the BBC will refer to world cities by their name e.g. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Sydney etc, in the USA news they will say Paris France, Rome Italy, Madrid Spain, Sydney Australia etc. One would think that Americans need to be told where these cities are.

I appreciate that there are towns in the US with names the same as many world cities, but if they are showing pictures of the Colosseum in Rome it’s hardly likely to be Rome Georgia.

It's more a reflection of the fact that when talking about places in the us it's common for Americans to add the state name e.g. Paris Texas, so they do the same for European countries as well London, Engalnd

 

[takno]

Also, but opposite, where the BBC will refer to world cities by their name e.g. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Sydney etc, in the USA news they will say Paris France, Rome Italy, Madrid Spain, Sydney Australia etc. One would think that Americans need to be told where these cities are.

I appreciate that there are towns in the US with names the same as many world cities, but if they are showing pictures of the Colosseum in Rome it’s hardly likely to be Rome Georgia.

I think it's iintended to be nformational. They will often refer to Edinburgh, England, and I don't think there are any significant Edinburghs in America

 

[dangie]

I think it's iintended to be nformational. They will often refer to Edinburgh, England, and I don't think there are any significant Edinburghs in America

Well that's not very informational, it's wrong

Unless they are referring to the Edinburgh Woolen Mill

 

[dcbwhaley]

I think it's iintended to be nformational. They will often refer to Edinburgh, England, and I don't think there are any significant Edinburghs in America

I once met a newly married German lady at a party in Manchester. I asked if her husband was English. "Yes" she replied "He is from Edinburgh". Not sure how long the marriage lasted

 

[takno]

Well that's not very informational, it's wrong

Unless they are referring to the Edinburgh Woolen Mill

It's very much like the point in Die Hard where the expert being interviewed says that the hostages will by now be going through the early stages of Helsinki Syndrome, and the anchor interrupts to say "as in Helsinki, Sweden"

 

[telstarbox]

Labour's seat tally is already low due to the vaccine bounce effect when these seats were last up for election in 2021. They will probably lose a few or stay level roughly. The Tories will have a bloodbath as they're at a very high level of seats and are still polling poorly, despite now being the opposition (who do well in local elections normally). The Lib Dems, Reform and the Greens will be the winners.

Incidentally while Reform will perform well here, I think it will only be a short-term victory, as all the councillors they get will cause them headaches. We've just had a story of a candidate being suspended due to past controversial social media posts. The more elected officials they have, the greater the spotlight on them and the more scandals/controversy will come out (they had huge problems finding suitable GE candidates last year for the same reason).

Reform UK: Stephen Hartley suspended after pro-Jimmy Savile tweets

Stephen Hartley was announced as a Reform UK candidate in the Banbury Hardwick ward, but has since been suspended.

www.bbc.co.uk

Similarly UKIP won Thanet Council in 2015 and lost control of it by 2018.

 

[brad465]

Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:

British Steel: Government aims to take control with emergency law

Parliament will be recalled for a rare Saturday sitting in a bid to save the company's owner from closing the site.

www.bbc.co.uk

Parliament will be recalled on Saturday to debate an emergency law to save British Steel's plant in Scunthorpe.

A government source says it is looking "to take control"' of the company, after its Chinese owner said its blast furnaces are "no longer financially sustainable".
Talks have been taking place this week talks to keep production going at the firm, which employs 2,700 people.
Politicians left Westminster for their Easter break on Tuesday, and were not due to return until 22 April.
Ministers had expressed a preference for a commercial solution to secure the long-term future of the plant.
But they had not ruled out nationalising the firm, saying all options remained on the table.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k44k4rz8jo
The House of Commons said MPs would discuss proposed legislation to "ensure the continued operation" of the company's blast furnaces, the last place in the UK where higher-grade virgin steel is made.
The House of Lords is also being recalled, sitting from midday, one hour after the sitting will start in the House of Commons.
Chinese company Jingye, which bought British Steel in 2020, says it has been suffering financial losses of around £700,000 a day.
Last month it began a mandatory 45-day consultation on plans to shed jobs at its steelmaking operations, blaming "highly challenging" market conditions, tariffs and costs associated with lower-carbon production techniques.
But the government is thought to have lost confidence in the company after a stand-off over who will pay for raw materials to keep the blast furnaces going.
Industry body UK Steel has warned that ending production at the Scunthorpe site would see the UK would lose vital steelmaking capabilities.